The Effect of Eve's Sin on Women

Allegory aside, Paul still referred to what was written in the book of Genesis as the law. This is indisputable.

What about what Jesus said here?

Mar 10:2
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

Mar 10:3
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

Mar 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

Mar 10:5
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

Mar 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mar 10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Mar 10:8
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Mar 10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus was asked if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife. He initially responded by asking his questioners what Moses commanded them. They, in turn, quoted what Moses had written in the 24th chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, but this was not the answer that Jesus was looking for. He, while answering the question of whether or not it was lawful for a man to put away his wife, quoted what Moses had written in Genesis 2:24. In other words, he regarded what Moses had written there as being part of the law or as being a command in relation to whether or not it was lawful for a man to put away his wife.

Allegory aside, Paul still referred to what was written in the book of Genesis as the law. This is indisputable.

What about what Jesus said here?

Mar 10:2
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

Mar 10:3
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

Mar 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

Mar 10:5
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

Mar 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mar 10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Mar 10:8
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Mar 10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus was asked if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife. He initially responded by asking his questioners what Moses commanded them. They, in turn, quoted what Moses had written in the 24th chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, but this was not the answer that Jesus was looking for. He, while answering the question of whether or not it was lawful for a man to put away his wife, quoted what Moses had written in Genesis 2:24. In other words, he regarded what Moses had written there as being part of the law or as being a command in relation to whether or not it was lawful for a man to put away his wife.

I disagree strongly with your assessment and your reasons. In short, your argument is circular.

Nothing in the Law says that women are to be silent, so either Paul didn't write those words (he probably was responding to a quoted question) or he didn't know the Law. The second is completely incompatible with the wealth of knowledge he displays in his letters, so that leaves the first option. Nothing in Paul's words "alludes" to anything in Genesis 3. You're seeing a connection that you want to be there but isn't; that's called eisegesis.

A more coherent interpretation of Gen. 3:16 doesn't assume the presence of the words "to rule over". Adam was never given authority over Eve, so there was no authority for her to "usurp".

Psst: A quotation from Jesus doesn't prove your point about Paul.

It wasn't a command or a law in Genesis to not divorce. Jesus was simply telling them not to destroy something God created because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus actually sanctioned divorce in the case of adultery

So that just leaves the first option? Says who? You?

Like it or not, Paul alluded to something in the law which commands wives to be under obedience to their own husbands, so what portion of scripture from the law was he referring to?

Also, your claim about there being no authority to usurp is totally unbiblical. There are numerous passages in the New Testament which refute your view.

I should end this post by asking those who are reading my comments not to assume what I believe these passages mean because they will more than likely come up with a completely inaccurate view of my actual beliefs.

Methinks you didn't read my post carefully.


Ditto the above comment.


Ditto the above comment, and you're engaging in circular reasoning.


I can only go by what you wrote. If what you wrote doesn't represent what you believe, that's on you, not on me.

I never said that Jesus did not sanction divorce under certain circumstances. Instead, I quoted that conversation to show that Jesus considered the book of Genesis to be a part of the law. Are you willing to admit the same?

Like it or not, Paul alluded to something in the law which commands wives to be under obedience to their own husbands, so what portion of scripture from the law was he referring to?

So, a bunch of non-responses?

That is what I thought.

Welcome to ignore.

After Adam and Eve sinned and God handed out His sentence to the serpent and its seed, and before He sentenced Adam and males, He told Eve that the sentence for her and females was that their desire would be for their husband who would rule over them. Here is the verse:

"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3:16).

A woman's desire being for her husband (for men) doesn't sound like a bad thing unless you acknowledge that that was said in the context of sentencing one to a curse. There are translations that do a better job of showing why that desire is actually a curse, but I still don't understand the whole verse (I mean, God said He would multiply woman's sorrow and conception; we know what pain in childbirth means, but what does pain in conception mean?).

As far as the original KJV, God told Eve at least five different things there in the context of a curse:

1. Her sorrow would be greatly multiplied (what sorrow).

2. Her conception would also be greatly multiplied.

3. Her childbearing (possibly before, during, and after) would be painful.

4. Her life would revolve around and be lived for [a man/men].

5. Her life and reality would be subject to [a man/men].

I was one of the few high schoolers who enjoyed history class. I like to know what happened in the past especially as it affects the present. So, I tend to follow things back to their past so I can make sense of them in the present. And so I wonder what the curse on Eve means because it is the origin of many of the things about women today that most men don't understand or can't make peace with. Actually, if there is anything right now that makes me feel a genuine need to truly pursue and lay hold of God to make sense of a lot of things, it is the effects the Fall has had on women. ('Lay hold of God' doesn't mean 'spending time with God' or Bible reading and prayer but an actual 'face to face' or continuing type of conversation.)

Anyone with more of an explanation of Gen. 3:16 feel free to share. When I read that verse, just like when I read the first three chapters of Genesis and as with much of the Bible, I know there is a lot more going on there than is written on the surface. Besides, the things or aftershocks I can clearly see in the present require that there is a lot more being said in Gen. 3:16 than what is written on the surface.

I disagree strongly with your assessment and your reasons. In short, your argument is circular.

Nothing in the Law says that women are to be silent, so either Paul didn't write those words (he probably was responding to a quoted question) or he didn't know the Law. The second is completely incompatible with the wealth of knowledge he displays in his letters, so that leaves the first option. Nothing in Paul's words "alludes" to anything in Genesis 3. You're seeing a connection that you want to be there but isn't; that's called eisegesis.

A more coherent interpretation of Gen. 3:16 doesn't assume the presence of the words "to rule over". Adam was never given authority over Eve, so there was no authority for her to "usurp".

Paul is using that story in Genesis as an allegory of the law, so I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion that anything in Genesis is the law

IMO you need to carefully consider the possibility that Paul didn't write those verses, so the mention therein of the law is irrelevant

Genesis is written by Moses when God told him the creation story on Mount Sinai over fourty days

That’s the moment that caused this

Paul definately knew the law and he definately wrote those words .

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Nothing in Paul's words "alludes" to anything in Genesis 3. You're seeing a connection that you want to be there but isn't; that's called eisegesis.”

He’s definately talking about Adam and Eve in genesis three

definately he knew the law he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin and claims to be faultless according to the law.





Genesis is written by Moses when God told him the creation story on Mount Sinai over fourty days

Why should we wonder of just those verses are from Paul ?

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

That seems a pretty precarious position to remove verses as of they aren’t genuine because we don’t agree

Why should we wonder of just those verses are from Paul ?

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

That seems a pretty precarious position to remove verses as of they aren’t genuine because we don’t agree

What law? The law of Moses? No. The first 5 books of the bible that were possibly referred to colloquially as the law, ie, the law and the prophets? Yes.

That's possible, but none of the book of genesis is law in the sense that we are used to, ie, commandments

That's possible, but none of the book of genesis is law in the sense that we are used to, ie, commandments